Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • INTELLECTUALS : GOSSIPERS —“Intellectuals are a social class in a position to

    INTELLECTUALS : GOSSIPERS

    —“Intellectuals are a social class in a position to critique societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and to advocate for the interests of other classes.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 03:08:00 UTC

  • Your next startup… Uber meets Hummer, complete with para-mil drivers

    Your next startup… Uber meets Hummer, complete with para-mil drivers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 19:30:00 UTC

  • “Progressivism wears the religions it has devoured like a monster that dresses i

    –“Progressivism wears the religions it has devoured like a monster that dresses itself in the skins of people it has eaten. It has consumed Judaism, Christianity, and most of Islam, though the worst and most harmful religion, Islam, still lives and is fighting back.”— Jim

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 06:39:00 UTC

  • I HAVE IT RIGHT Just going over Bruce Caldwell’s work on Praxeology and feeling

    I HAVE IT RIGHT

    Just going over Bruce Caldwell’s work on Praxeology and feeling very confident. Time to go see him this year. As far as I know I have rescued praxeology from the pseudoscientific fringe. Praxeology is a failed attempt at economic intuitionism / operationalism, and all sciences are consistent, and operationalism is an extension of (or as Ayelam Valentine Agaliba says, consistent with) falsification. All knowledge is theoretical. The means by which we imagine theories is irrelevant, and their survival of criticism is why they are warrantable (true). Science, if we add in both cost and morality (which haven’t been necessary for the physical sciences) is then the moral discipline of speaking truthfully, and philosophy, science, and morality are consistent and complete (synonyms). As such law, when requiring the full suite of scientific criticisms:

    And there is but one universal moral principle:

    (a) truthfully stated

    ….(i) internally consistent (logically tested)

    ….(ii) externally correspondent (evidentially tested as meaningfully predictive and/or explicative)

    ….(iii) existentially possible (operationally defined)

    ….(iiii) falsifiable and falsified (negatively tested)

    ….(v) fully informed (complete)

    (c) productive

    (d) warrantied

    (e) voluntary exchange

    (f) free of negative externality

    Outstanding issues:

    1) “calculability”: the prohibition on pooling and laundering, is the monetary equivalent of the prohibition on loading and framing. In my current conception this is

    included in operational definitions, but I think I must address numbers, money and prices specifically in order to prohibit political ‘discretion’ and ‘general funds’.

    2) Writing it out as legal construction rather than philosophy.

    Then it’s on to work on institutions. And I can leave ‘Truth’ and ‘Austrian Econ’ behind me.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 05:22:00 UTC

  • DOESN’T BUY POSITIVE RIGHTS EITHER (positive rights are an idiot-test) It doesn’

    http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/blog/post/an-interview-with-john-searleSEARLE DOESN’T BUY POSITIVE RIGHTS EITHER

    (positive rights are an idiot-test)

    It doesn’t occur to him (or anyone else) that all non-positive human rights in the charter are expressions of property rights. (sigh).

    But that said. Positive rights constitute an idiot test. Its just one of those things. If you advocate for positive rights, you’re an idiot. Even if you advocate positive property rights. You’re just an idiot. You are a well intentioned idiot. But you are an idiot none the less.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 04:51:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://bit.ly/1vuJdlO

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 04:43:00 UTC

  • QUESTION OF THE DAY What is the difference between a recipe and a theory?

    QUESTION OF THE DAY

    What is the difference between a recipe and a theory?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 03:22:00 UTC

  • THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT Science as we understand it is an attempt to

    THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT

    Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech.

    Science as we understand it does not ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.

    Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.

    Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.

    Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy en toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.

    Law can now be scientifically constructed.

    Truth, science, law, morality are now identical.

    All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 02:57:00 UTC

  • THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT Science as we understand it is an attempt to

    THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT

    Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech.

    Science as we understand it does not ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.

    Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.

    Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.

    Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy en toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.

    Law can now be scientifically constructed.

    Truth, science, law, morality are now identical.

    All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 02:56:00 UTC

  • INFORMATION SYSTEM IS NOT WELL BEHAVED AND LINEAR My fundamental interest is ins

    https://www.academia.edu/9865619/Understanding_Financial_Instability_Minsky_Versus_the_AustriansOUR INFORMATION SYSTEM IS NOT WELL BEHAVED AND LINEAR

    My fundamental interest is institutions and law, but I geek-out when someone helps me better understand economics by providing a language for concepts we fail to understand sufficiently to articulate alone. (I love this paper. Maybe it just appeals to my niche interests, but it’s awesome.)

    —“The conventional economic paradigm is thus not the only way economic interrelations can be modeled. Every capitalist economy can be described in terms of sets of interrelated balance sheets. At every reading of the balance sheet the financial instruments can be interpreted as generating two sets of time series: the liabilities generate payment commitments, and the assets generate expected cash receipts. Balance sheets relations link yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows: payment commitments entered in the past lead to cash payments that need to be executed now as well as future cash payments, even as liabilities are taken on now that commit future cash flows. In this structure the real and the financial dimensions of the economy are not separated: there is no so-called real economy whose behavior can be studied by abstracting from financial considerations. This system, linking yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows both financially and in terms of the demand for and supply of goods and services, is not a well-behaved linear system. Furthermore, the presumption that this system has an equilibrium cannot be sustained. This modeling of the economy leads to a process in time that generates a path that can fly off to deep depressions and open-ended inflations, even in the absence of exogenous shocks or strange displacements. In this model money is never neutral. (Minsky ibid. 78)”— Ludwig van den Hauwe

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-26 08:57:00 UTC